About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
the board cuts is going to make a difference to us. probably will not be felt for a number of months and may not be felt until the next fiscal year, but those uncertainties have to be noted in terms of our estimates. >> so, ms. zamuda, i don't know if this is an appropriate question for you or to ms. howard. the threat of sequestration at the federal level, have we done some work on thinking about what that impact might be to the city? >> supervisor, we have. it's an an insignificant number. it's approximately $30 million of impact. some of that is on the general fund side, some of it is not. and i think we all will need to be watching closely to see what the federal government does. and then make some determinations about to what degree the city can afford to backfill those kinds of programs. >> okay. and to ms. zamuda's comments or earlier, those would be anticipated be felt in the next fiscal year, though, if they do happen? >> i think that's yet to be seen. you know, we know that federal agencies are already slowing down their spending and anticipation of the sequester. what that likely
fund. and then the use of the general re serve of 32.2 million. we are assuming you will need to use all of that reserve in order to balance the budget. and then the deposits to reserves, because of our increases to revenue, amount to 11 million. so, that brings us to a projected fund balance estimate of 174 million. as i mentioned before, 103 million of that was already committed to the year two. and the replenishment of the general re serve that we will be using this year needs to be incorporated in next year's budget, leaving us with a projected surplus of $38 million. so, the next slide provides you with a summary of our major tax revenue in the city and it shows you where the bulk of that surplus 72 million come from. and that is property transfer taxes, about $21 million over the budget as we are taking a look at the cash we've received thus far and estimating how much additional property tax revenue we will get for the reminder of the year. our second-largest is -- yes. >> if we can go back to the previous slide, the projected surplus, 38.3 million, how does that relate to the
,300 at the human services agency, and appropriating uses of $50,000 to the department of juvenile probation, $2,424,528 to the department of public health, $3,180,461 to the human services agency, $400,000 to the art commission, and $1,800,000 to the children and families commission in fiscal year 2012-2013. >> thank you. we have ms. howard here from our mayor's office of budget. >> good afternoon, supervisors, kate howard, [speaker not understood]. i'm here before you to approve an event over the supplemental that's before you appropriating fund from our state revenue lost reserve to a variety of programs that were reduced in the governor's budget last year. i also have with me staff from the human services agency, the department of aging adult services, juvenile probation, the department of public health, and the arts commission in the event that there are specific questions about any of the appropriations. as you will remember, last year the governor's budget proposed and it was adopted by the legislature a number of reductions in both local revenues and direct cuts to services that affect t
balance of $38.3 million. we started the year with a balance of 220 million. 104 million of that was used to balance this year's budget. as you recall in a two-year budget, we were appropriating for two fiscal years. this year and next year. so, 104 million was appropriated in year one. and then if you see under column d another 103 million was appropriated for year two. so, the mayor's office policy which was adopted by the board, [speaker not understood] take that starting balance and allocate it for each of the two fiscal years. >> does that include where we allocated -- when we send the budget stabilization reserve, [speaker not understood] fund balance? >> that's right. so, current year -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> right. so, we have $116 million available. much of that is going to be counted for next fiscal year. $72 million of current revenue. and in the next slide we'll show you exactly what sources that 72 million comes from. baseline contributions, that is, we have to pay $9.5 million to get to our base lines. department of operations, if you take all of the revenue, gains
benefit cost growth is a significant issue for us as well as our unfunded retiree health care liability which, as you'll recall, is $4.4 billion. our labor contracts, as i mentioned, will be open the second year of the budget. this budget -- the projection before you assumes no wage increase in the second year of the budget, but we will be negotiating with the majority of our labor unions not police and fire in the second year. we also, as you all have heard and i think this will continue to be an issue that comes up at this committee and in other places, the effects of federal health care reform are really uncertain. the way that the department receives revenue is changing dramatically. the people who will be covered, it's a whole new expanded pool of people. they have choices about where to -- where to consume health care. do he they want to be a dph client, do they want to go somewhere else. there is a lot of uncertainty around that. the governor has made proposals about potentially shifting those responsibilities entirely to the counties which would have significant and --
continued within their own fund balance to use for next fiscal year. and, so, that's what we're assuming for the recreation and park department. the assessor-recorder has -- >> growth within recollect he and park, could that be attributed to, do you know? * rec and park >> i believe it's related to the stadium revenues and also the success of some of our football activities in the current year. surplus of 3.8 million -- due to 2.8 million in surplus garage revenue and a million of additional candlestick concession revenue. we had one of our garages that was closed for a period of time. so, people started using a recreation and park garage and, so, that was a shift of revenue from the mta really to the recreation and park department. and the assessor-recorder has additional recording fees and the controller's office is holdling back on some of the audit work so that a saving can help support next year's budget. and then the remainder of the departments represent a small surplus of 2.4 million. so, we have roughly $32 million of surplus departments to offset 51 million of deficit departme
that context with the expenditure growth, within that can you tell us a little bit more about what, what those line items are underneath that that contribute greatly to those numbers? >> sure. i think i'll answer that in the next two slides. and if i don't get it, then we can talk a little bit more about it. >> got it. >> so, the next slide just provides a high level of our revenue picture. so, in our -- in the assumptions that i've made in our budget deficit projection, we're assuming we will want to have a state reserve so that costs us money those years. we assume that some of the one-time sources that we may have used to balance the budget last year are not available and then we have revenue growth in the general fund. and i have assumed that there will be about $50 million of revenue growth and -- in the first year and 128 million in the second year. on the expenditure side, what you can see is that our costs are growing largely because of personnel related costs. so, this is slide 9. the first line, so, $8.8 million of costs greater than what we -- what you adopted in the budget last yea
a three-quarter vote for us to issue more bonds. in addition to what julie has mentioned, while we want to constrain the costs, we have also been achieving a great deal of savings on our revenue bond issuances. we have refunded every revenue bond that we could, achieving $52 million of rate payer saving over the last three years. in addition, we sold sewer bonds on monday morning and we were the first city department to sell bond since the city's geo bond rating was upgraded. and the market received us very, very well. we saved rate payers over $150 million because of the aggressive bidding buyers wanted to buy san francisco sewer bonds. we achieved foreign rates at about 3.58%. so, while julie and i give you the good news and the bad news, we're balancing the budget and we want to do that to make sure rates stay as affordable as we can. >> another option we would have, too, supervisor, we have an ongoing capital program for our water enterprise and there's been question that some of the improvements in that program could be deferred slightly and some of the wsip improvements could be m
of the technology store vendors using department funds that have been approved and the board of supervisors annual budgetary process and which is certified by the controller. oca started a process to develop a new competitive solicitation to award new contracts to replace these contracts prior to them when they expire on december 31st, 2013. given the estimated contract values, oc would -- oca would be returning to the board after that solicitation to request your approval for new contracts over 10 million. i would be glad to respond to questions. >> colleagues, any questions? actually, can i just ask, mr. jones, upping the cap $30 million, what are the additional tech expenses that you anticipate just on a bigger level that will come in? so, it looks like we may exceed the limit by march 2013. what are some examples that these large tech expenses that may be coming through the rest of the year? >> specifically on some of the allowances with you include, there are a number of ongoing large projects that were just started and the departments have not encumbered all of the funds that they anticipate
. >> is there no deferred maintenance here and other garages that it would be more appropriately used for? >> well, that's what this bond issuance is for, in terms of an mta wide, so we can address concerns related to all the garages, not just japan center. or sutter stockton. so, that is our main concern, is that knowing that not only this garage needs improvements, but city-wide as well. >> i understand that, but that seems to me like you're taking bond money, then, and transferring it through a wheel to operational expenses. to the budget analyst analyst. >> mr. chair, as we understand it, the bonds that have been issued are taking care of their capital improvement needs. * so, this in effect winds up as surplus and can be transferred for operating expenditures to the mta. so, they're not short changing their capital needs as we understand it. >> thank you, i appreciate that. i guess my question is but by issuing the debt, you say you're not short changing the capital needs, but tame point in time you're [speaker not understood] and you're issuing bonds against it for operational expenses. you're flo
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)